Summary: We will not investigate Mrs D’s complaint about the way the Council considered safeguarding concerns she raised about her mother, Mrs F. This is because there is not enough evidence of fault with the actions taken by the Council to warrant an ombudsman investigation.

The complaint

1. Mrs D complained the Council did not respond to her questions or acknowledge her anxieties when she raised safeguarding concerns about control and coercion of her mother, Mrs F. Mrs D says Mrs F does not have the opportunity to voice her concerns, she has been refused access to see Mrs F and says the Council has not responded to her concerns about these matters. Mrs D says as Mrs F's attorney, she wants information the Council is refusing to give her. Mrs D wants the Council to say why it told Mrs F’s GP not to give her access to medical records she legally was entitled to have and wants the Council to explore, reflect and apologise for its failures to ensure Mrs F’s best interests are met.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

2. We investigate complaints about ‘maladministration’ and ‘service failure’, which we call ‘fault’. We must also consider whether any fault has had an adverse effect on the person making the complaint, which we call ‘injustice’. We provide a free service, but must use public money carefully. We do not start an investigation if we decide the tests set out in our Assessment Code are not met. (Local Government Act 1974, section 24A(6), as amended).
3. The Information Commissioner's Office considers complaints about freedom of information. Its decision notices may be appealed to the First Tier Tribunal (Information Rights). So where we receive complaints about freedom of information, we normally consider it reasonable to expect the person to refer the matter to the Information Commissioner.

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

4. I considered information provided by the complainant.
5. I considered the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.

Back to top

My assessment

6. The Council advised Mrs D it could only share limited information with her as requested by Mrs F. The Council explained, as part of the s42 safeguarding enquiry it undertook following the issues Mrs D raised, it arranged for an advocate to be involved to support Mrs F and represent her views. It concluded there were no identified concerns around abuse or neglect.
7. The Council investigated Mrs D’s concerns and satisfied itself there was no evidence of abuse or neglect. There is not enough evidence of fault with the actions taken by the Council to warrant an ombudsman investigation and nothing more we can achieve by investigating.
8. The Council’s duty is to Mrs F, and it has explained Mrs F does not want Mrs D to have information about her. Mrs D can apply to the Court of Protection to take a view on her concerns that Mrs F is unable to protect herself, she is being refused access to see Mrs F and ask it to say what information she, Mrs D, should have about Mrs F is she believes the Council are not acting in Mrs F’s best interest. Mrs D can also contact the Information Commissioner’s Office (ICO) if she is concerned the Council is withholding information she believes she is entitled to see, and it would be reasonable for her to do so. While Mrs D is unhappy with the lack of involvement and communication by the Council there is not enough evidence of fault with its actions to warrant us investigating.
9. Mrs D is concerned the Council told Mrs F’s GP not to give her medical information about her. We cannot tell councils not to contact other agencies or professionals about its concerns. I understand Mrs D now has the information she wants.

Back to top

Final decision

10. We will not investigate Mrs D’s complaint because there is not enough evidence of fault with the actions taken by the Council to warrant an ombudsman investigation.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman